Well, anyone interested enough in MZ saw that ugly "Open XUL Alliance" newspost and subsequent discussions. Well, if Gerald Bauer has ever done Mozilla any good, it was when he tried to use the lack of XUL evangelism as evidence for his views. Actually, there's quite some material on XUL , both technical and evangelism, available. There's very few "lots of XULs, oh joy":roll: material around, sometimes where you'd never expect it...

Nigel McFarlane wrote:The free Mozilla platform—that is, the executable engine and libraries that accompany every Mozilla-based product—provides a fully-featured implementation of XUL. This article is a quick look at the main tags that Mozilla's XUL provides.

That really sounds like the Macromedia XUL crap that G.B posted. "Which XUL are you talking about? Mozilla's XUL"

Nigel again wrote:Rendering support is required if an XML document is to have a visual representation. The platform has rendering support for HTML/XHTML, MathML, optionally SVG, and also its own XUL

:doubt: Note that Nigel does a great work for XUL, I'm just nitpicking to introduce a evangelization proposal.

Luxor aka GB wrote:Luxor is a free, open-source XML User Interface Language (XUL) toolkit in Java released under the GNU General Public License (GPL) that supports hand-picked Mozilla XUL goodies and also includes a ultra-light weight, multi-threaded web server, a portal engine and Apache Velocity as its template engine.XUL stands for XML User Interface Language and was pioneered by Mozilla. XUL is superior to API-based GUI...

Harry Fuecks(sic) wrote:In one of the Internet’s quieter corners, mozilla.org, a revolution has been taking place. A new XML format, called XUL (eXtensible User Interface Language), pronounced "Zool", is on the way to re-shaping what we know about both the Internet, and desktop applications. A bold claim perhaps -- but once you've finished reading this, you may just find yourself agreeing.

Peter Bojanic wrote:XUL™ (pronounced "zool") is Mozilla's XML-based User interface Language that lets you build feature-rich cross platform applications that can run connected or disconnected from the Internet.

Some people have this "[url=http://www.informit.com/isapi/postid~%7B2F126640-0866-4D82-A048-DB38FAEBB051%7D/st~%7B281272C2-25BA-4446-AEE6-B140B462D2D5%7D/session_id~%7B220A9469-09FD-49B3-A982-3291F2723811%7D/discussion/showComments.asp#{2F126640-0866-4D82-A048-DB38FAEBB051}]XUL ain't no Mozilla XUL[/url]:furious:" agenda, and those people (whose initials usually are GB) are pretty talkative](*,) . Get to know reliable sources and keep an open eye to avoid their corruption.

PS: Zoologia and XUL are totally unrelated Sorry for smilies galore... the voices made me do it

In the Original Post, someone wrote:Gerald Bauer writes: "The Richmond Post — a news blog chronicling the XUL Revolution — announced the winners of the XUL Motor of the Year 2003 award today [Friday]. Mozilla leads the pack with 98 votes (31%) followed by two Java XUL motors (Swix and Thinlet) and a Flash XUL motor (Zulu)."

Given that Mozilla is the only "XUL motor" on the award shortlist to actually support the XUL specification, it is hard to see how anything else could have won. Unless of course you use 'XUL' to mean any XML-based declaritive markup language, in which case you probably also use 'Java' to refer to any object-oriented programming language and 'English' to describe any language that uses the Latin alphabet.

Well... Mozilla is the only "XUL motor"(sic), but more than two hundred people voted for other "XUL motors"(sic). The fact that XUL is a specific language (and not a class of languages) has nothing to do with how hard anything else could have won this poll: if The Richmond Post keeps on spinning its concept of XUL and nobody argues, how can it be hard to see Mozilla being less voted than other "XUL motors"(sic)?

AlexBishop wrote:Re: Re: support the XUL specification(...)The Mozilla Application Suite uses the XPFE toolkit (or pseudo-toolkit really), while Mozilla Firebird, Mozilla Thunderbird and friends use the new XUL toolkit (could do with a better name there). They're both XUL though.

Better name and much better marketing strategy

geraldb wrote:All the XUL News Fit To Print> I don't understand how something from this site even became a news article.

Well, dare I say that the Open XUL Alliance site is the world's leading XUL news site.

Well, Gerald has a point. His XML based user interface description languages site really makes a lot more noise than any real XUL related news. So... XUL evangelism anyone?

"Anyone that wants to learn what XUL is has a fat chance of believing in Gerald Bauer's definition, while believing that Mozilla is trying to fool them Microsoft-style." Think someone going to sourceforge or freshmeat and searching for XUL (feel free to try).
Simple enough?

Gerald Bauer is doing the same to XUL what Microsoft did to Java when they made up J++.
He's trying to destroy it by not honoring the open (!) standard, but beginning to call everything XUL that is slightly related to describing an UI using XML.